A Brief Glance at Right-Wing Stupidity

We'll start with a few choice quotes from David Brooks on Saddam Hussein's WMDs, helpfully compiled by Glenn Greenwald:

I MADE THE MISTAKE of watching French news the night of Colin Powell's presentation before the Security Council. . . . Then they brought on a single "expert" to analyze Powell's presentation. This fellow, who looked to be about25 and quite pleased with himself, was completely dismissive. The Powellpresentation was a mere TV show, he sniffed. It's impossible to trust any of the intelligence data Powell presented because the CIA is notorious for lying andmanipulation. The presenter showed a photograph of a weapons plant, and then thesame site after it had been sanitized and the soil scraped. The expert wasunimpressed: The Americans could simply have lied about the dates when the pictures were taken. Maybe the clean site is actually the earlier picture, he
said. That was depressing enough. Then there were a series of interviews withFrench politicians of the left and right. They were worse. At least the TV expert had acknowledged that Powell did present some evidence, even if he thought it was fabricated. The politicians responded to Powell's address as if it had never taken place. They simply ignored what Powell said and repeated that
there is no evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that, in any case, the inspection system is effective. This was not a response. It was simple obliviousness, a powerful unwillingness to confront the question honestly.

...

EITHER SADDAM HUSSEIN will remain in power or he will be deposed. President Bush has suggested deposing him, but as the debate over that proposal has evolved, an interesting pattern has emerged. The people in the peace camp attack President Bush's plan, but they are unwilling to face the implications of theirown. Almost nobody in the peace camp will stand up and say that Saddam Hussein is not a fundamental problem for the world. Almost nobody in that camp is willing even to describe what the world will look like if the peace camp's advice is taken and Saddam is permitted to remain in power in Baghdad, working away on his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs . . .

So now we stand at an epochal moment. The debate is over. The case has gone to the jury, and the jury is history. Events will soon reveal who was right, Bush or Chirac. . . . But there are two nations whose destinies hang in the balance. The first, of course, is Iraq. Will Iraqis enjoy freedom, more of the same tyranny, or a new kind of tyranny? The second is the United States. If the effort to oust Saddam fails, we will be back in the 1970s. We will live in a nation crippled by self-doubt. If we succeed, we will be a nation infused with confidence. We will have done a great thing for the world, and other great things will await.

Speaks for itself, don't it? I never knew that much about David Brooks. Before reading that Greenwald post I'd assumed he'd always been at the NYT because that's where he was when Tom Tomorrow started mocking him as "Mr. McBobo." Then I'd see him in his daring sartorial choices being criticized on "Crooks and Liars" babbling about the imaginary salad-bars at the "Applebee's" restaurant chain.

Now, let's look at a Canadian right-wing blogger, the shit-for-brains "Junker."

Here's what "Junker" had to say about the non-existent WMDs (all the quotes are from the link above or the Dawg's Blawg post mentioned there):

Conrgress and the Senate authorized the war Bush pushed for, based on numerous reasons, only one of which was WMDs.

Say, that's true! In their war authorization, Congress through in all sorts of crazy, hypocritical, delusional bullshit on top of the issue of WMDs. Big Fucking Deal. The point is that Saddam's alleged WMDs was the issue that the bush II regime was screaming and shrieking and LYING about to justify their invasion. Don't try to pretend that it was just one little factor in a larger picture. It was the central point. And it was all a bunch of stupid, obvious lies.

Okay, ... WMDs aside, how does Junker feel about having been so disastrously wrong about invading Iraq? Here's what he said:

While we're at it, care to admit your side got Iraq completely wrong?

To which, a sane person can only breath "Holy shit" and grapple for something steady to hold on to. How does "Junker" rationalize to himself that the invasion of Iraq turned out to be a success?

The Iraqi government is not a showcase of democracy, and yet it is more democratic than any other in the region. There was a violent civil war, and free Iraqis won it.

It was during the darkest moments in Iraq, when the struggle was at its peak, that the opposition reached a crescendo in the west. All the while soldiers of the west along with free Iraqi’s ignored the din, crushed the enemy, and stabilized the country against tremendous odds. Had we pulled out then we would have left a horrific violent mess. Instead we leave a free Iraq with the chance to build a stable future.

Keep in mind, please that the most thorough study has estimated that by 2006 there were over 600,000 excess deaths caused by the violence in Iraq. At the rate of violence since that time, there are no doubt over ONE MILLION excess deaths in Iraq. At the same time, there are an estimated FOUR MILLION refugees created by the crisis, some "internal" (that is, they were forced to flee [and abandon] their homes and take refuge with family or friends or generous strangers, elswhere in Iraq, or else they've been forced to flee abroad where many of them are living in absolute destitution). Imagine if Canada was invaded and descended into ethnic, sectarian and political violence, which resulted in 1.5 million deaths from violence, and 2.5 million people made homeless and another 2.5 million forced to flee the country. Then imagine that there's an army of morons oceans and continents away babbling about how "successful" the invasion was!

What are the current conditions in Iraq? Unemployment is 18%. Under-employment is a further 10% of the labour force. The violence has declined because the "ethnic/sectarian cleansing" amongst Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds has essentially been completed and there's far fewer left to kill. Maliki's government is unpopular and rules by force and through Shiite sectarianism and torture. He's also quite close to Iran, which would normally upset the pro-invasion crowd given their fear and loathing of that country.

Having blithered stupidly about how "successful" the invasion of Iraq was, "Junker" concluded that entry with this ominous tidbit:

Wonder if there is a parallel there to be drawn about Afghanistan?

Loud and clear "Junker." Just as you're capable of lying to yourself about what happened in Iraq, you're also quite capable of deluding yourself about 8 years of failure in Afghanistan. If, after over a decade of war, misery and corruption, Afghanistan settles down into an autocratic (but Taliban-free) hellhole, you'll congratulate yourself for having seen the job through to a "successful" conclusion and you'll be champing at the bit to bring freedom and democracy to some other needy civilization.

You moronic piece of shit.